BAY CITY, MI — A federal judge has ruled a former Bay County Sheriff's deputy’s lawsuit against Sheriff John E. Miller, alleging Miller violated his First Amendment rights in terminating him, is to go before a jury.

U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington on Monday, Feb. 10, signed an order stating that Jason Holsapple’s suit against Miller and the Bay County Sheriff’s Office is to proceed to a jury trial. The order also dismisses Bay County itself from the suit, to which Holsapple, through attorney Victor J. Mastromarco Jr., agreed.

“We looked at it and said, ‘There’s no basis for the county to be held under' " the Freedom of Speech issue, Mastromarco said. “Sheriff Miller has specific responsibilities. It’s not like he was just a passive participant. The sheriff was acting in his own interest.

“It is certainly a favorable opinion for Holsapple,” Mastromarco added.

Holsapple’s lawsuit alleges that Miller fired him for supporting his opponent, Robert “Bobby” Lee, in the 2012 election, violating his First Amendment rights.

Holsapple served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 2001 through 2005. Miller hired Holsapple as a deputy on July 24, 2011, and fired him on March 9, 2012. In that span, Holsapple was a probationary employee and would have been until April 2012.

In his opinion, Ludington wrote that during Miller’s candidacy, “many employees felt the Sheriff’s Office became a politically charged environment.” Ludington bases this on previous testimony of several deputies, who said there was palpable pressure in the agency to support Miller over Lee.

Holsapple himself testified that “it was made known to (him) that you support Sheriff Miller if you want to work” at the department. Still, Holsapple actively supported Lee through his campaign, he said.

In the second week of March 2012, Miller started interviewing deputies about whether or not they had heard anyone badmouthing other employees, according to deputies’ testimony. Miller then terminated Holsapple’s employment on March 9, 2012, giving him a letter that he was dismissed from service.

In December 2012, Miller signed an affidavit explaining why he terminated Holsapple’s employment, which reads: “Prior to my decision to discharge Jason Holsapple from his employment at the Bay County Sheriff’s Office, I received verbal reports from Bay County deputies that Holsapple had been making disparaging and, in some cases, alarming comments about members of the Sheriff’s Office, including command staff. I was also told Holsapple had mentioned climbing up on a building and shooting people. Based on my investigation, I decided to discharge Holsapple for his misconduct. There was no other reason for my decision.”

Ludington’s order states that this statement contradicts what Miller said at a deposition three months earlier, when he testified that a specific deputy told him of Holsapple’s worrisome behavior after he was terminated. Miller also said that this deputy approached him to discuss Holsapple, while the deputy’s handwritten account indicates Miller called her into his office to speak about Holsapple’s conduct, Ludington’s order states.

Attorneys for the sheriff argued Holsapple failed to create sufficient evidence that he was discharged because of his affiliation with Lee, but Ludington disagreed. “It does not matter whether Holsapple openly supported Lee in the Sheriff election or not, only that he was perceived to do so by Sheriff Miller,” Ludington wrote, adding that there is compelling evidence that Miller learned of Holsapple’s affiliation with Lee the day before he fired him.

The sheriff’s attorneys also argued Miller had legitimate reasons for dismissing Holsapple and thus a summary judgment should be issued in their favor.

“However, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment at this point only if 'in light of the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, no reasonable juror could fail to return a verdict for the defendant,’ ” Ludington wrote. “Based on the facts, viewed in Holsapple’s favor, a verdict for the Defendants is far from certain.”

The trial of Holsapple’s suit is to begin before Ludington on Tuesday, March 18.

Mastromarco also alleges Miller violated Holsapple’s rights as granted under the state’s Veterans’ Preference Act of 1897. The act states that veterans can only be dismissed from a government job “for official misconduct, habitual, serious or willful neglect in the performance of duty, extortion, conviction of intoxication, conviction of felony, or incompetency; and such veteran shall not be removed, transferred or suspended for any cause above enumerated from any office or employment, except after a full hearing before the governor of the state if a state employee, or before the prosecuting attorney if a county employee.”

Whether Mastromarco can present that issue at the trial will be up to Ludington.

Holsapple has filed another suit alleging defamation of character against Undersheriff Troy Cunningham and Jail Administrator Troy Stewart. It was dismissed by Schmidt in March 2013 and is currently awaiting a ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals, Mastromarco said.

In that suit, Holsapple alleges Cunningham and Stewart defamed his character by telling Bay City Times reporters that Holsapple was discharged for being “a bad employee.”

Miller and the sheriff’s office are represented by Heidi E. Warren and John R. McGlinchey of Detroit law firm Abbott Nicholson. The Times was unable to reach them for comment.

Miller also declined to comment due to the case still proceeding through the court system.